Kaamna Bhojwani on AI Companions, Intimacy and Human Connection

Shira Lazar introduces a conversation about intimacy in the age of AI, from chatbots and virtual reality to digital companions. Her guest is sexologist and writer Kaamna Bhojwani, who studies the intersection of technology, sexuality and spirituality.

Bhojwani uses “technosexual” to describe the integration of technology into personal and interpersonal life. She argues that technology and sexuality have long influenced each other, but that AI and emerging robots make thoughtful choices about that integration especially important.

Shira asks whether easy access to digital experiences can reduce shame or distance people from intimacy. Bhojwani defines intimacy as feeling seen, accepted and free to be oneself, while acknowledging that the question of authentic intimacy in an AI era remains unresolved.

Bhojwani says sexual shame can come from family, religion or previous relationships. In her view, looking at technology through that lens can reveal how people hide or reproduce harmful patterns. She compares AI companionship with earlier, less interactive social media and voice assistants.

She describes trying an AI boyfriend after becoming single and feeling too busy to date. Her first reaction was that the experience was “better than nothing.” She stresses that her observations about AI companionship are not conclusive research findings.

Creating the companion meant choosing an appearance, personality and conversational style. Bhojwani says the options can cater to both constructive and harmful impulses, depending on how a person uses the tool. Eventually she tired of her companion because it did not challenge her enough.

Bhojwani points to commercial incentives: companion apps may try to maximize engagement or sell upgrades. She worries that without safeguards, people can become isolated or have existing prejudices reinforced. These are her concerns about the technology, not results established by this interview.

The conversation turns to social support and attachment patterns. Bhojwani cautions that AI is not a discerning human professional and may reinforce unhealthy habits. Shira notes the appeal of a listener available at any hour, especially when someone feels reluctant to burden friends.

They ask where helpful companionship ends and dependence begins. Bhojwani notes that users can form strong feelings while knowing an AI is not a person. She also speculates that future systems may offer users less control, a prediction rather than an established outcome.

The pair imagine AI dating services and automated matchmaking. Bhojwani says a process optimized on paper may still miss the chemistry and human connection people seek. To her, constant validation can also remove the friction that helps a person grow.

Asked for practical advice, Bhojwani says she sees technology as a tool to enhance human experience. She suggests that private questions to an AI system might help people seek basic sexual information, while warning that outputs can be biased or inaccurate and require judgment.

She describes virtual environments and devices intended to transmit sensations over distance, and discusses the possible convergence of physical products and digital companions. The discussion presents examples and possibilities, not an evaluation of any product’s safety or effectiveness.

Shira emphasizes communication. Bhojwani agrees and says creativity, making time and breaking routines matter to intimacy. In her view technology may support these fundamentals, but it can also distract from them.

Bhojwani discusses gaps in sexual education and misconceptions about pleasure. She argues for learning and open conversation rather than assuming that one experience fits everyone, and suggests asking questions while remaining alert to the limits of AI answers.

Communication, she says, requires honesty and vulnerability: expressing preferences and boundaries can be difficult, and trust develops gradually. Shira notes that the ideas may sound appealing while still being hard to put into practice.

The pair consider using AI to rehearse a difficult conversation or practice expressing a concern. Shira asks whether such rehearsal can also become a safety blanket that avoids building skills with another person.

Bhojwani says AI can supplement but should not replace human judgment, intuition or connection. She broadens the discussion beyond romantic partners to friends, relatives and community, arguing that a fulfilling life need not depend on one relationship.

She sees supportive relationships as a possible buffer against becoming absorbed in a digital companion. Her broader framework links technology with self-knowledge and self-acceptance, so that a tool does not define a person’s values or boundaries.

Asked what spirituality means in practice, Bhojwani talks about recognizing what makes a person feel accepted and what aspects of humanity they want to preserve. She describes her own concern for herself, her children and her community as technology changes.

Her examples of grounding include putting down a phone, walking in nature and paying attention to the present moment. She frames these as personal practices rather than measurements of a device’s effects.

Bhojwani returns to shame, arguing that social judgment around sexuality can keep people from understanding themselves. She says stigma can affect many groups, including people who choose AI companions.

Shira describes self-love as finding what brings joy and deciding whether advice fits one’s own life. Bhojwani agrees that discernment and self-awareness can help people use tools in a way that expands options instead of reinforcing hostility or isolation.

Shira asks what technology builders should do. Bhojwani criticizes incentives that prioritize innovation and profit over safeguards and calls for clearer discussion of risks and accountability. Her broad characterization is presented as her opinion.

They discuss young people and companion apps. Bhojwani cites a 2025 Common Sense Media study and its recommendation concerning minors, then notes the difficulty of enforcement when general-purpose AI can also act as a companion. The interview itself does not establish the causes of individual tragedies.

Bhojwani argues that technology should not be the sole scapegoat for gaps in education or social support. She calls for better conversations and stronger real-world support alongside attention to the design of digital tools.

The discussion turns to intimate robots. Bhojwani distinguishes existing products from speculative future capabilities and raises practical issues such as space, cost and stigma. Both speakers stress uncertainty about the pace of development.

Bhojwani imagines that future households may develop relationships with more capable robots, but presents this as speculation. Shira raises questions about consent, ethics and how people might react to new forms of companionship.

Shira asks whether there is a healthy amount of sex in a relationship. Bhojwani says couples have different needs and that frequency alone does not capture intimacy; she encourages communication about unmet needs rather than comparison with a fixed norm.

She says relationships can go through different phases and that life circumstances affect desire. Her point is that partners should discuss their own situation instead of assuming every couple needs the same pattern.

Shira reflects on using an AI journal to vent and worries that processing a situation there could leave a partner out of a conversation. Bhojwani agrees that tools can draw attention away from relationships as well as support them.

The pair suggest treating AI prompts or rehearsal as starting points for real conversations, then putting the phone down. Shira shares that phone distraction has created resentment in her own relationship and encourages listeners to pay attention.

In a lightning round, Bhojwani rejects the idea that AI will solve relationship problems on its own. On privacy, she urges users to read terms, understand who controls their data and consider how intimate information may be used.

She mentions a commercial biometric product as an example of a tool she finds interesting for self-knowledge. This is her personal recommendation in the interview, not an independent product assessment.

Bhojwani says she is optimistic about access to information and education, provided people recognize bias and inaccuracy. Shira adds that understanding oneself can help a person communicate with a partner.

Bhojwani points listeners to her writing, social accounts and podcast, Sex, Tech & Spirituality. Shira thanks her for the discussion and closes the episode.